Whereas the characteristics of human rights fact-finding largely vary depending on the typology and scope of the entity that carries it out, consensus seems to be developing that a common set of challenges to human rights fact-finding exists. This is especially so when carried out under United Nations auspices. For example, it has long been acknowledged that the very nature of the institution, sitting as it does at the crossroads of international politics, as well as the seemingly irresolvable tension between calls for human rights protection on the one hand, and State sovereignty on the other, present some structural challenges to human rights fact-finding. Furthermore, issues of coordination between the United Nations and other institutions (such as international governmental and non-governmental organisations, or international tribunals), as well as what some have called a ‘lack of institutional memory’ arguably often feature as regular traits among fact-finding mechanisms. In recent years, a further set of challenges has been added to the mix by additional requirements, featuring increasingly often in mandates, that instruct fact-finding mechanisms to make further determinations of facts (concerning, e.g. , the identity of those most responsible for the violations being documented, or the existence of an armed conflict) and even consider questions of law ( e.g. the qualification of the violations as crimes under international law). Building on an expanding body of scholarship on the subject, as well as the author’s own experience with fact-finding efforts sitting at the intersection between traditional international human rights law and international criminal justice, this article argues: (i) that human rights fact-finding has evolved in three waves; (ii) that the third wave of human rights fact-finding is characterised by an “accountability turn”; and that (iii) this turn has brought about an additional set of challenges to the already thin-stretched capacity of UN human rights inquiries. By virtue of the arguments advanced in this article, the author posits that updating and solidifying the human rights fact-finding methodology can assist United Nations inquiries and other human rights fact-finders in strengthening the credibility of their findings.

中文翻译：

---

第三波人权实况调查中的问责制转变

人权实况调查的特点在很大程度上取决于实施该调查的实体的类型和范围，而共识似乎正在发展，这是对人权实况调查存在一系列共同的挑战。在联合国主持下进行时尤其如此。例如，人们早就认识到，该机构的性质正处于国际政治的十字路口，一方面要求保护人权，另一方面要求国家主权之间似乎似乎无法解决的紧张关系。其他方面，对人权事实调查提出了一些结构性挑战。此外，联合国与其他机构（例如国际政府和非政府组织或国际法庭）之间的协调问题，以及某些所谓的“缺乏机构记忆力”通常可以说是事实发现机制中的常规特征。近年来，通过要求越来越多的附加要求，又增加了一系列挑战，这些要求在任务中越来越频繁地出现，这些要求指示事实调查机制对事实做出进一步的确定（例如，关于最负责任的人的身份）。记录的侵权行为或存在武装冲突），甚至考虑法律问题（例如，将侵权行为认定为国际法中的犯罪）。建立在关于该主题的学术研究不断扩大的基础上，以及笔者在传统国际人权法与国际刑事司法之间的交汇点上进行事实调查的经验，本文认为：（一）人权事实调查分三波发展；（ii）第三波人权实况调查的特点是“问责制转向”；（iii）这一转变给联合国人权查询本已捉襟见肘的能力带来了又一系列挑战。根据本文提出的论点，作者认为，更新和巩固人权事实调查方法可以帮助联合国调查和其他人权事实调查者增强其调查结果的可信度。（iii）这一转变给原本已经捉襟见肘的联合国人权查询能力带来了又一系列挑战。根据本文提出的论点，作者认为，更新和巩固人权事实调查方法可以协助联合国的调查和其他人权事实调查者增强其调查结果的可信度。（iii）这一转变给原本已经捉襟见肘的联合国人权查询能力带来了又一系列挑战。根据本文提出的论点，作者认为，更新和巩固人权事实调查方法可以帮助联合国调查和其他人权事实调查者增强其调查结果的可信度。